Excellent takedown of Mopologist DNA misinformation

[Physics Guy]

Yes, it’s a distinction. Your phrasing could not be improved or condensed, and like Shakespeare you cannot be quoted with attribution because it would insult readers to suggest that they might not recognize the source.

[I Have Questions]

DCP completely ignored your entire point and just focused on the “intellectually bankrupt” part. Which didn’t even mention him.

Indeed. Let's take a look:

Although he and other intellectually bankrupt Mopologists have redefined the Book of Mormon to be a lineage history, not a single apostle or prophet has defined it that way--nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. . . So, Kevin Barney and the rest of the Mopologetic clowns have destroyed the Book of Mormon in order to save it.

. . . “intellectually bankrupt Mopologists” such as I, . . . have redefined the Book of Mormon. We’ve made it a lineage history, although supposedly not a single apostle or prophet has ever defined it that way — nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. Thus, we’ve clumsily destroyed the Book of Mormon in our hopeless and desperate attempt to save it.

Now that I too have been plagiarized by DCP, does that mean I've "arrived?"

Within the piece that plagiarised you Dr Shades, Peterson in his attempt at defending his intellectual integrity provides a quote from a First Presidency counsellor that (although he clearly hasn’t seen the problem with it) backfires in his face.

As you study the Book of Mormon keep these things in mind and do not make definite statements concerning things that have not been proven in advance to be true. (Anthony W. Ivins, Conference Report [April 1929], 16.)

Wow! Well, it hasn’t been proven in advance that Nephites, Lamanites, Mulekites, Jaredites, existed. So making a definitive statement that they did goes against the advice Peterson is quoting. In other words, Peterson via Irvins is saying do not profess definitive belief that the Book of Mormon is a record of an ancient people unless or until we have definitive objective proof. Which we don’t have.

[drumdude]

Even believing Mormons on SeN are a little peeved about the smoke and mirrors:

Sorenson had an hypothesis that all the events of the Book of Mormon occurred in the limited area of Mesoamerica, and his book to establish this is primarily rhetoric substituting for evidence. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon to suggest a limited geography. I have challenged many to provide any such reference and no one has done so. In fact there are many references that require a vest territory.

[huckelberry]

Southerton has addressed this.

• Why do you accept Southerton's scale(s) of Lehite civilization?
• Why would you expect Lehite DNA to "hang around like Neanderthal DNA"?
• If ancient Israelite DNA is genetically close to neighboring populations: Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, etc., what do you mean by "Semitic"?
• Does Southerton's hemispheric theory account for genetic drift, population bottlenecks, and replacement events?

Regards,
MG

MG, these questions have been brushed aside with an asked and answered attitude. Perhaps differing assumptions are at play. I will make simple responses to see if the point of different understanding will show up.

Neanderthal parents lived many thousands of years before the Nephites. One might think if DNA traces from 30 thousand years ago show up it would appear more likely that a mixed population 2 thousand years ago would show.

Semitic refers to all those neighboring groups you mention around Judea. If one is looking for Semitic DNA it is a rather broad target of related people.

I do not know of population replacement events or bottle necks. Drift is an issue in small groups in what I read. That might be why you keep asking about hemispheric model. The Book of Mormon speaks of large populations. Nephites are pictured as many people not a band of a few hundred swallowed up by a million Mayan. I think that works much the same, limited geography or hemispheric.

[Marcus]

• Why do you accept Southerton's scale(s) of Lehite civilization?
• Why would you expect Lehite DNA to "hang around like Neanderthal DNA"?
• If ancient Israelite DNA is genetically close to neighboring populations: Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, etc., what do you mean by "Semitic"?
• Does Southerton's hemispheric theory account for genetic drift, population bottlenecks, and replacement events?

Regards,
MG

MG, these questions have been brushed aside with an asked and answered attitude. Perhaps differing assumptions are at play. I will make simple responses to see if the point of different understanding will show up.

Neanderthal parents lived many thousands of years before the Nephites. One might think if DNA traces from 30 thousand years ago show up it would appear more likely that a mixed population 2 thousand years ago would show.

Semitic refers to all those neighboring groups you mention around Judea. If one is looking for Semitic DNA it is a rather broad target of related people.

I do not know of population replacement events or bottle necks. Drift is an issue in small groups in what I read. That might be why you keep asking about hemispheric model. The Book of Mormon speaks of large populations. Nephites are pictured as many people not a band of a few hundred swallowed up by a million Mayan. I think that works much the same, limited geography or hemispheric.

I am curious to see if you get a legitimate response to your thoughtful comments.

[Rivendale]

• Why do you accept Southerton's scale(s) of Lehite civilization?
• Why would you expect Lehite DNA to "hang around like Neanderthal DNA"?
• If ancient Israelite DNA is genetically close to neighboring populations: Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, etc., what do you mean by "Semitic"?
• Does Southerton's hemispheric theory account for genetic drift, population bottlenecks, and replacement events?

Regards,
MG

MG, these questions have been brushed aside with an asked and answered attitude. Perhaps differing assumptions are at play. I will make simple responses to see if the point of different understanding will show up.

Neanderthal parents lived many thousands of years before the Nephites. One might think if DNA traces from 30 thousand years ago show up it would appear more likely that a mixed population 2 thousand years ago would show.

Semitic refers to all those neighboring groups you mention around Judea. If one is looking for Semitic DNA it is a rather broad target of related people.

I do not know of population replacement events or bottle necks. Drift is an issue in small groups in what I read. That might be why you keep asking about hemispheric model. The Book of Mormon speaks of large populations. Nephites are pictured as many people not a band of a few hundred swallowed up by a million Mayan. I think that works much the same, limited geography or hemispheric.

Great summary. Yes DNA investigations over the span of 30,000 years is sensitive enough to identify Neanderthals. It has also found a single Native American woman that traveled with Vikings around 1000 AD and had descendants. I am not sure what you meant by differing assumptions are at play. What do you mean by this?

[MG 2.0]

Southerton has addressed this.

• Why do you accept Southerton's scale(s) of Lehite civilization?
• Why would you expect Lehite DNA to "hang around like Neanderthal DNA"?
• If ancient Israelite DNA is genetically close to neighboring populations: Canaanites, Phoenicians, Arameans, etc., what do you mean by "Semitic"?
• Does Southerton's hemispheric theory account for genetic drift, population bottlenecks, and replacement events?

Regards,
MG

These questions have not been adequately addressed.

Regards,
MG

[Rivendale]

Literally from Simon himself seconds ago.

You are right. I don’t like debating idiots who NEVER change their mind. They are not interested in truth, just winning the debate.
A recent post of mine on Reddit might be useful.

[MG 2.0]

Literally from Simon himself seconds ago.

You are right. I don’t like debating idiots who NEVER change their mind. They are not interested in truth, just winning the debate.
A recent post of mine on Reddit might be useful.

I read that thread on reddit the other day. I don't see where it adequately tackles the four points I've made. I'll stick with Ugo A. Perego.

Regards,
MG

[Marcus]

DCP completely ignored your entire point and just focused on the “intellectually bankrupt” part. Which didn’t even mention him.

Indeed. Let's take a look:

Although he and other intellectually bankrupt Mopologists have redefined the Book of Mormon to be a lineage history, not a single apostle or prophet has defined it that way--nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. . . So, Kevin Barney and the rest of the Mopologetic clowns have destroyed the Book of Mormon in order to save it.

. . . “intellectually bankrupt Mopologists” such as I, . . . have redefined the Book of Mormon. We’ve made it a lineage history, although supposedly not a single apostle or prophet has ever defined it that way — nor, for that matter, has the Book of Mormon itself. Thus, we’ve clumsily destroyed the Book of Mormon in our hopeless and desperate attempt to save it.

Now that I too have been plagiarized by DCP, does that mean I've "arrived?"

Yes, you have! (Give me a minute I will add you to the thread.)